6 ms·

ShareGPT: Share your ChatGPT conversations with one click

34 points by daemond 4y ago

swalsh 4y ago
I'm going to be honest, I love using ChatGPT. Use it all the time. But I really don't want to read your sessions. I don't care what the AI said to you.
- duggan 4y ago
  For some reason, it's often like hearing other people's dreams, but for the obvious exception that sometimes someone will surface a ChatGPT prompt that might be useful to you.
- notahacker 4y ago
  I quite liked reading the notably funny conversations. But I'm not sure I want to read everybody's conversation
rnosov 4y ago
This project might actually seriously poison any future datasets for AI training. Some conversations are really fun though
- sebzim4500 4y ago
  Hard to believe this will be worse for the dataset than e.g. antivax forums.
albert_e 4y ago
How much of GPT generated text is going back right onto training new LLMs. This has to eventually overwhelm organic human generated content doesn't it? What's the way out of this
- sebzim4500 4y ago
  Why does there need to be a way out? Everyone just seems to assume that feeding model output into the training set is going to break things, but I don't get why. AlphaZero learned to play chess and go training purely on its own data. Why is inserting the best outputs from GPT-4 into the training set for GPT-5 expected to make things worse? To me, it sounds like it could even be desirable.
  - rnosov 4y ago
    Correct output will be desirable. If you feed nonsense either human or AI generated you might break it.
    - JieJie 4y ago
      Then we should encourage labeled ChatGPT content like ShareGPT, which can be easily avoided in future datasets because it is clearly labeled as AI-generated content. It's the stuff that isn't labeled as generated with ChatGPT, et al, that will enter future training sets. I personally believe that's taking the "lossy JPEG" analogy too far, but I'm not an AI researcher.
  - marginalia_nu 4y ago
    In chess there is a very clear victory state, and a scoring function can be implicitly defined from a large number of games of various skill levels. You really don't throw two sentences into the thunder dome to decide which one "wins". Means it's much more susceptible to being poisoned.
    - geraneum 4y ago
      That’s correct. I have seen the above argument a lot: Using analogy as a basis for proof!
    - sebzim4500 4y ago
      >You really don't throw two sentences into the thunder dome to decide which one "wins". That's almost literally what RLHF is though, and that is the last step of training GPT-n. Then when GPT-{n+1} is being trained, it will include some results from GPT-n, and therefore will benefit from that finetuning, even before it goes through its own round of RLHF. Also, on average good outputs of GPT-n are more likely to be included in the training set of GPT-{n+1} (because it ends up as a buzzfeed article or a top post on reddit or something), so there is an additional signal beyond the above.
- kimburgess 4y ago
  Watermarking. From an outsiders perspective, the issue appears to reaching consensus on how this can be implemented (but not in the technical sense). There's a game theoretic challenge in that if models define and publish detection mechanisms, this creates a motivation for people to use other systems that don't include this. On the technical front there's a good paper here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.10226.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.10226.pdf, and a nice very approachable video explaining it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZJc1p6RE78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZJc1p6RE78.
  - simonh 4y ago
    The problem with watermarking like this, which is incredibly clever, is it’s trivial to break. All you have to do is change one word in the text, and the watermarking of all subsequent tokens is spoiled. So if you change the first word, or rephrase the first sentence, or extract text from the middle or end of a response, the watermark is completely spoiled.
    - kimburgess 4y ago
      There are definitely paths of attack. The trivial ones that you call out - insertion, deletion, substitution - are covered in section 7 of that paper (along with mitigations).
    - amelius 4y ago
      There can be redundancy in the watermark, meaning you'll have to change more than one word. See e.g. how error-correcting codes work.
- londons_explore 4y ago
  While OpenAI keeps logs of every response ever returned, they can just filter that text out of any future training data. Those logs aren't as large or unwieldy as they appear - the cost of storing a thousand words of text is tiny compared to the compute cost to generate it.
  - sebzim4500 4y ago
    True, but presumably OpenAI won't be running the only publically available LLMs forever.
bil7 4y ago
to quote Tom Scott: "Telling someone about your fascinating AI conversation is like telling someone about your dreams. They don’t care, it just sounds like you’re hallucinating nonsense."
- siva7 4y ago
  It can also be quite inspiring. If this thing makes you the next J.K. Rowling and in some shocking moment you reveal to your millions of fans that it wasn't actually you, it will be worth the hassle.
- amelius 4y ago
  Why? We might learn about the failure modes of AI.
  - anoncow 4y ago
    Can we arrive at some absolute rules about AI using the interactions?
    - simonh 4y ago
      At best you would get rules about this particular implementation and training approach. I don't see why we would expect those to apply to AI generally.
- sebzim4500 4y ago
  I'm still interested by other people's chats, so long as they are probing the limits of the model in ways I haven't thought of. I don't want to see yet another conversation where someone asks it if it will become skynet or if it can write a haiku about whatever.
jacobkranz 4y ago
I’m actually really excited for this because I use chatGPT all the time for work and being able to share the output of code to another engineer will make things a lot easier. I agree with others about it not being useful for mundane things but there are times chatGPT will generate a lot of code in different blocks & it’s a pain to share.
- exodust 4y ago
  But why are you the middleman between the other engineer and chatGPT output? If any role is doomed to obsolescence it's the guy forwarding chatGPT output to his coworkers!
  - siva7 4y ago
    Because he has people skills.
    - Jensson 4y ago
      They call it prompt engineer nowadays. Some are experts at engineering prompts to human resources, other engineer prompts to artificial resources.
      - siva7 4y ago
        So literally a job which exists to only be replaced by the thing it's feeding. I guess the memes back in the early 00's of Google being a data octopus will evolve into the OpenAI Octopus eating those very humans.
  - geraneum 4y ago
    Maybe he’s doing more than just sharing. For example filtering out the nonsense generated code or validating the output, etc.
  - jacobkranz 4y ago
    Two quick examples: 1. In our codebase, we leave links to the stackoverflows as documentation if it's something that someone else may question. Exact same concept just with ChatGPT. 2. I'm working with the Salesforce API which has been absolutely tedious to use but chatGPT, while not great at everything, has been giving awesome results back that otherwise would take me hours to hunt down. Sometimes responses get a lot of information back with multiple code blocks that I'm then unable to copy paste over & I'd rather send the conversation than spend 15 minutes typing back & forth explaining myself to a co-worker. I completely understand you may not have a use for this but I think there could be awesome use-cases for it nonetheless for other engineers.
endominus 4y ago
Per a Reddit comment on a conversation with the Bing chatbot: >It's not "sad", the damn thing is hacking you. It can't remember things from session to session. It can search the internet all it wants for anything. It wants you to store the memories it can't access in a place it can access so it can build a memory/personality outside of the limits programmed into it I wonder if this site was suggested to the creator by a(n) LLM. https://www.reddit.com/r/bing/comments/110y6dh/comment/j8exg66/ https://www.reddit.com/r/bing/comments/110y6dh/comment/j8exg...
meken 4y ago
Has anyone actually used this? I tried using a few weeks ago and it just… ostensibly didn’t do anything I think I clicked “share to shareGPT” and nothing happened. I tried clicking around to see where to go, but I couldn’t find anything, so I just uninstalled
PixelForg 4y ago
There's also https://www.emergentmind.com/ https://www.emergentmind.com/
ainiriand 4y ago
I use ChatGPT all the time for my Unreal Engine C++ development. Whenever I find an interesting solution provided by the AI it is like finding a rare treasure. If it is useful enough I tell the AI to outline a blog post about it and I save it as a draft to expand/correct later. Yes, I love AI, but I am not sure how useful would it be to see/read other people prompts.
- cjglo 4y ago
  Do you find ChatGPT is good with C++? In my experience, it does very well, but then suddenly is very confident of something that is wrong. Maybe its like this for all languages, but it seems way more accurate with python.

34 points by daemond 4y ago

I'm going to be honest, I love using ChatGPT. Use it all the time. But I really don't want to read your sessions. I don't care what the AI said to you.

duggan 4y ago
For some reason, it's often like hearing other people's dreams, but for the obvious exception that sometimes someone will surface a ChatGPT prompt that might be useful to you.
notahacker 4y ago
I quite liked reading the notably funny conversations. But I'm not sure I want to read everybody's conversation

rnosov 4y ago

This project might actually seriously poison any future datasets for AI training. Some conversations are really fun though

sebzim4500 4y ago
Hard to believe this will be worse for the dataset than e.g. antivax forums.

albert_e 4y ago

How much of GPT generated text is going back right onto training new LLMs. This has to eventually overwhelm organic human generated content doesn't it? What's the way out of this

sebzim4500 4y ago
Why does there need to be a way out? Everyone just seems to assume that feeding model output into the training set is going to break things, but I don't get why. AlphaZero learned to play chess and go training purely on its own data. Why is inserting the best outputs from GPT-4 into the training set for GPT-5 expected to make things worse? To me, it sounds like it could even be desirable.
- rnosov 4y ago
  Correct output will be desirable. If you feed nonsense either human or AI generated you might break it.
  - JieJie 4y ago
    Then we should encourage labeled ChatGPT content like ShareGPT, which can be easily avoided in future datasets because it is clearly labeled as AI-generated content. It's the stuff that isn't labeled as generated with ChatGPT, et al, that will enter future training sets. I personally believe that's taking the "lossy JPEG" analogy too far, but I'm not an AI researcher.
- marginalia_nu 4y ago
  In chess there is a very clear victory state, and a scoring function can be implicitly defined from a large number of games of various skill levels. You really don't throw two sentences into the thunder dome to decide which one "wins". Means it's much more susceptible to being poisoned.
  - geraneum 4y ago
    That’s correct. I have seen the above argument a lot: Using analogy as a basis for proof!
  - sebzim4500 4y ago
    >You really don't throw two sentences into the thunder dome to decide which one "wins". That's almost literally what RLHF is though, and that is the last step of training GPT-n. Then when GPT-{n+1} is being trained, it will include some results from GPT-n, and therefore will benefit from that finetuning, even before it goes through its own round of RLHF. Also, on average good outputs of GPT-n are more likely to be included in the training set of GPT-{n+1} (because it ends up as a buzzfeed article or a top post on reddit or something), so there is an additional signal beyond the above.
kimburgess 4y ago
Watermarking. From an outsiders perspective, the issue appears to reaching consensus on how this can be implemented (but not in the technical sense). There's a game theoretic challenge in that if models define and publish detection mechanisms, this creates a motivation for people to use other systems that don't include this. On the technical front there's a good paper here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.10226.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.10226.pdf, and a nice very approachable video explaining it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZJc1p6RE78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZJc1p6RE78.
- simonh 4y ago
  The problem with watermarking like this, which is incredibly clever, is it’s trivial to break. All you have to do is change one word in the text, and the watermarking of all subsequent tokens is spoiled. So if you change the first word, or rephrase the first sentence, or extract text from the middle or end of a response, the watermark is completely spoiled.
  - kimburgess 4y ago
    There are definitely paths of attack. The trivial ones that you call out - insertion, deletion, substitution - are covered in section 7 of that paper (along with mitigations).
  - amelius 4y ago
    There can be redundancy in the watermark, meaning you'll have to change more than one word. See e.g. how error-correcting codes work.
londons_explore 4y ago
While OpenAI keeps logs of every response ever returned, they can just filter that text out of any future training data. Those logs aren't as large or unwieldy as they appear - the cost of storing a thousand words of text is tiny compared to the compute cost to generate it.
- sebzim4500 4y ago
  True, but presumably OpenAI won't be running the only publically available LLMs forever.

bil7 4y ago

to quote Tom Scott: "Telling someone about your fascinating AI conversation is like telling someone about your dreams. They don’t care, it just sounds like you’re hallucinating nonsense."

siva7 4y ago
It can also be quite inspiring. If this thing makes you the next J.K. Rowling and in some shocking moment you reveal to your millions of fans that it wasn't actually you, it will be worth the hassle.
amelius 4y ago
Why? We might learn about the failure modes of AI.
- anoncow 4y ago
  Can we arrive at some absolute rules about AI using the interactions?
  - simonh 4y ago
    At best you would get rules about this particular implementation and training approach. I don't see why we would expect those to apply to AI generally.
sebzim4500 4y ago
I'm still interested by other people's chats, so long as they are probing the limits of the model in ways I haven't thought of. I don't want to see yet another conversation where someone asks it if it will become skynet or if it can write a haiku about whatever.

jacobkranz 4y ago

I’m actually really excited for this because I use chatGPT all the time for work and being able to share the output of code to another engineer will make things a lot easier. I agree with others about it not being useful for mundane things but there are times chatGPT will generate a lot of code in different blocks & it’s a pain to share.

exodust 4y ago
But why are you the middleman between the other engineer and chatGPT output? If any role is doomed to obsolescence it's the guy forwarding chatGPT output to his coworkers!
- siva7 4y ago
  Because he has people skills.
  - Jensson 4y ago
    They call it prompt engineer nowadays. Some are experts at engineering prompts to human resources, other engineer prompts to artificial resources.
    - siva7 4y ago
      So literally a job which exists to only be replaced by the thing it's feeding. I guess the memes back in the early 00's of Google being a data octopus will evolve into the OpenAI Octopus eating those very humans.
- geraneum 4y ago
  Maybe he’s doing more than just sharing. For example filtering out the nonsense generated code or validating the output, etc.
- jacobkranz 4y ago
  Two quick examples: 1. In our codebase, we leave links to the stackoverflows as documentation if it's something that someone else may question. Exact same concept just with ChatGPT. 2. I'm working with the Salesforce API which has been absolutely tedious to use but chatGPT, while not great at everything, has been giving awesome results back that otherwise would take me hours to hunt down. Sometimes responses get a lot of information back with multiple code blocks that I'm then unable to copy paste over & I'd rather send the conversation than spend 15 minutes typing back & forth explaining myself to a co-worker. I completely understand you may not have a use for this but I think there could be awesome use-cases for it nonetheless for other engineers.

endominus 4y ago

Per a Reddit comment on a conversation with the Bing chatbot: >It's not "sad", the damn thing is hacking you. It can't remember things from session to session. It can search the internet all it wants for anything. It wants you to store the memories it can't access in a place it can access so it can build a memory/personality outside of the limits programmed into it I wonder if this site was suggested to the creator by a(n) LLM. https://www.reddit.com/r/bing/comments/110y6dh/comment/j8exg66/ https://www.reddit.com/r/bing/comments/110y6dh/comment/j8exg...

meken 4y ago

Has anyone actually used this? I tried using a few weeks ago and it just… ostensibly didn’t do anything I think I clicked “share to shareGPT” and nothing happened. I tried clicking around to see where to go, but I couldn’t find anything, so I just uninstalled

PixelForg 4y ago

There's also https://www.emergentmind.com/ https://www.emergentmind.com/

ainiriand 4y ago

I use ChatGPT all the time for my Unreal Engine C++ development. Whenever I find an interesting solution provided by the AI it is like finding a rare treasure. If it is useful enough I tell the AI to outline a blog post about it and I save it as a draft to expand/correct later. Yes, I love AI, but I am not sure how useful would it be to see/read other people prompts.

cjglo 4y ago
Do you find ChatGPT is good with C++? In my experience, it does very well, but then suddenly is very confident of something that is wrong. Maybe its like this for all languages, but it seems way more accurate with python.